When the Wolf is running, try to keep up.

Month: June 2014

When it comes to the History of rockets, few towns play a more important role than Huntsville, Alabama. Situated in what was then rural Alabama, Huntsville became home to the Operation Paperclip rocket scientists following WWII. Since then, Huntsville and NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center have had at least a finger in ever system NASA has ever launched. I took a walk in the rocket park at the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville today.

The above is a V1 rocket, the terror of London. The V1 horrified England with it’s loud buzzing engine and payload of explosives. The first intercontinental Missile.

This is the V2 Rocket, the first real successful rocket flown, and the forefather of American rocketry. The V2 was designed by Warner Von Braun in Nazi Germany during WWII. Following the war, Operation Paperclip snatched Von Braun and his team, along with 34 rail cars full of V2 parts. This V2 is put together from the parts brought back from Germany. Recently refurbished, it sits next to (and is dwarfed by) the Saturn 5 rocket.

This is a picture of the budding United States entry into rocketry. The green rocket is a Redstone. Designed in Huntsville at Redstone Arsenal, it is basically the American upgrade to the V2. And it is a serious upgrade. Next to it on the left, but looking very similar to the Redstone is, well another Redstone. Only this one was fitted, in 60 days after the Navy failed to launch the first US satellite, to launch the first US satellite into space. In this variant, the Redstone was known as a Juno 1. Two rockets to the right is another Redstone, this time the Redstone-Mercury system. It is a Redstone Jupiter-C rocket with the Mercury capsule on top. It successfully launched Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom into suborbital space. The other two missiles are Juno and Jupiter variants of the Redstone.

This is the big daddy of the Redstone family of rockets. The Saturn I rocket. The first stage is basically several Redstone rockets wrapped together. This is the rocket first used to test the Apollo missions. It is also atop one of these rockets that astronauts Grissom, Chaffee and White lost their lives in a fire.

This is the Saturn V rocket, that sent American’s Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the moon. Well, actually it isn’t a Saturn V. That’s a free standing mockup, full scale mind you, of the Saturn V rocket. It’s beautiful to look at, but the director at the museum that had it built was a moron who had tons of financial issues while in position, and while building this fake Saturn V, a real Saturn V was rotting away on the back side of the museum property. Luckily of us, other people stepped up, and a new section to the museum was added, the Davidson Center for Space Exploration. The main exhibit? the fully restored Saturn V. A real Saturn V, compete with F1 engines and everything. And better yet, it hangs from the ceiling, so you can walk under it. Wanna see? I knew you would.

Did I mention a Saturn V is huge? I’m standing under the first stage engines, looking toward the capsule. The blue path, all the way till you can just make out a break in it is all the First Stage. That’s the, let’s get all this weight off the ground stage. This is a mammoth beast of a machine.

These are all various shots of the Saturn V taken around the room. I think the last is the one that shows the most of the rocket, you can make out the bottom fins of the first stage through to the capsule. That sucker is big. As a bonus, they had the Apollo 12 Capsule.

Okay, it’s behind glass facing a wall of windows. Not my best shot, and I don’t have a polarizing filter for that particular lens.

However, that’s not all they had. I think this is the coolest thing in the whole museum.

That is a moon rock, an actual extraterrestrial rock. It took Apollo 12 a half million miles to get that rock and bring it back. The feat is stunning.

That brings us here. To the Shuttle Transportation System. The last manned system NASA produced. Now retired, the Shuttles no longer fly and NASA has no way to get men to the International Space Station. This is a real, unused, external tank, two retired solid rocket boosters and a 99/100 scale wind tunnel model of the shuttle named Pathfinder. Personally, I think it is a shame that the US Space and Rocket Center didn’t get a real shuttle.

It is also a shame that NASA no longer has manned space flight. Frankly, I think it is a shame that we seemed to have failed so utterly with the Shuttle. It had such potential, and so much hope. But the national pride was wasted away, and the shuttle fleet aged. Two disasters, and the fleet had to be put down. But there was nothing waiting to take over, nothing ready to step up to the plate and lift our astronauts back to the stars.

It’s be easy to blame Obama, and much of the blame does have to fall on him. Constellation was nearing the completion of the design stage when Obama pulled the plug, setting US Manned spaceflight back by years and risking losing the newest space race to the Chinese. But the truth is, Bush didn’t exactly push a shuttle replacement. Neither did Clinton. So really, instead of figuring out what to do next while flying the Shuttle, NASA didn’t get the funding for the next phase of manned space flight. And that’s a shame.

Now that manned flight is, essentially, off the table there are strong voices, both in congress and in NASA that is arguing against a return of manned space flight outside of low earth orbit. Robots, drones or other means, these voices say. Look at the success of the rovers!

There is some truth to that. But imagine what we could do with those rovers if we had a real human making the decision instead of a 20 minute one way delay.

Side note: All images used in the post are copyright 2014 by Michael Malone. All rights reserved.

Bill Schmalfeldt has been asked on this blog a number of questions over the past month or so. Until yesterday, he has refused to answer any of the questions Running Wolf Blog has put forth. Yesterday, he finally answered all of Running Wolf Blog’s questions, however it wasn’t as forthcoming as you might think. Schmalfeldt answered the dozen or so question this blog had with a single answer, and Running Wolf Blog quotes…

The very first question Running Wolf Blog had for Mr. Schmalfeldt dealt with his record keeping habits for the pornography he produced. Several years ago, Mr. Schmalfeldt harassed a photographer in Texas, insisting he provide the legal paperwork required in the production of pornography. Since the paperwork would reveal personally identifiable information, under federal law the photographer could not provide what Mr. Schmalfeldt was asking for. Based on the photographer’s lack of response, Mr. Schmalfeldt filed a report with various Texas authorities. In the end, once the properly authorized individuals could review the photographers records, no charges were filed against the photographer.

Shortly after Mr. Schmalfeldt made the complaints against the photographer in Texas, Schmalfeldt produced his own version of pornography. He produced an image of two men engaged in either simulated or actual anal intercourse, and replaced the faces of the actual models hired with the faces of at least one other person. (Side note: for the purposes of this article, Running Wolf Blog is using the term “producer” as indicated in Section 2257 of Federal Code, which governs the record keeping requirements of producers of pornography.) Running Wolf Blog is in possession of multiple versions of the image, since original copyright holders apparently objected to the use of their intellectual property for Mr. Schmalfeldt’s use, this blog is not 100% sure which image is the final product.

However, a final product that used a fellow blogger’s image was used, replacing the face of a model in the original image. Running Wolf Blog has it on faith and belief that the blogger who’s facial image used in the final product did not sign a waiver or an age release form with the producer of the image, Mr Schmalfeldt.

Running Wolf Blog asked Mr. Schmalfeldt if he maintained the same record keeping protocols he demanded the Texas photographer turn over to him. Mr. Schmalfeldt, for over a month, has refused to answer the question until yesterday. His answer, “none of your fucking business.”

Since receiving that answer, Running Wolf Blog contacted the Baltimore office of the FBI to see what the FBI’s interest in illegal online pornography. The agent we spoke to, on the condition of anonymity, indicated that the FBI’s primary interest in online pornography has been child pornography. Generally, the FBI does not handle other types of pornography, even though the record keeping law is a federal law. When provided with the details at issue with Schmalfeldt’s production of pronogrophy, the agent wondered if this couldn’t be a case of revenge porn, since it is believed that at least one face model was unwillingly included. The agent indicated that recently the FBI arrested several Revenge Porn Kingpins, including Hunter Moore, and as a revenge porn case there could be interest.

Running Wolf Blog is under no illusion that the very busy office of the Baltimore FBI, which is one of the main offices outside of Washington DC handling the investigation of terrorism in and around the nation’s capitol, will be overly interested in the production of pornography in the shadow of the Nation’s capitol. Nevertheless, the question was asked, the answer (as insulting as it was) was given, and if the FBI is ever willing to focus on this problem, Running Wolf Blog ensures our readers that the FBI has the full cooperation of our resources on this issue.

Running Wolf Blog wishes to thank Mr. Schmalfeldt for his honest answer to our question on the production of pornography. Running Wolf blog will cover the answers to other questions of Mr. Schmalfeldt at a later date. This blog is thankful to all our readers for their continuing support and the plethora of information and screen captures that readers have provided. Since receiving a definitive answer from Mr. Schmalfeldt, we can finally proceed with our investigation into the various issues raised. Running Wolf Blog promises our readership to fully investigate Mr. Schmalfeldt’s answer(s) as fully as possible. More Answers of Bill Schmalfeldt stories are in the pipeline.

Field Day here in North Alabama has been cut short. Serious thunderstorms have moved through the area, forcing the dismantling of all the portable stations. Never did get to try and work W3JJH, but there may be future times when we can see if we can contact each other. Scarier is that a lightning strike well before the storm hit was dangerously close to our stations. Once everyone’s eyes cleared and ears could hear, there was a mad scramble to get the gear down. It was a leading edge strike a good 20 minutes before we thought we’d be tearing down. Much later, my ears are still ringing.

Side Note: Is anyone else a Ham? Perhaps we should see about about trying to meet on the airwaves sometime.

After getting down the mountain, I’m now safe in the house listening to the thunder and watching the windows flash. I’ve always enjoyed a good thunderstorm, the sound is awesome and the smell after a good thunderstorm is so clean. But after that lightning strike, I’m not afraid to admit I’m still a bit skittish. Lightning is a scary force of nature, in it’s own way every bit as powerful as a tornado or any other natural disaster.

Unless you’re close to a strike, it is easy to ignore. According to the National Weather Services, there have been over 110,000 lightning strikes in the US in the past 2 hours (as of this writing) with no reported injuries. In 2012, Alabama had two deaths from Lightning strikes, one here in my hometown. Considering the millions of times Lightning strikes the state in a year, that doesn’t sound so bad. Unless you are the one hit, of course.

So while I can console myself with the stats, it doesn’t help that I still have spots in my eyes and my ears are still ringing.

Since I’m obsessed with Bill, I thought it would be a good time to bring up my semi-regular Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt feature. These are questions I’ve collected from around the net that Bill Schmalfeldt has refused to answer. Since he’s banned on almost every blog, except this one, and this one holds him to the highest standard when it comes to rules, it has gotten harder to find questions because he just doesn’t post much anymore. Although he still runs his twitter and blogs. Sometimes. When they are up.

Your host.

UPDATE: Bill pointed out in his twitter feed that perhaps I didn’t ask a question in the proper way. In retrospect I agree with him. I have updated the question to better reflect what I meant to ask, with less snark and bias. Your host.

New question this week, asked by one of my anonymous sources, and verified by Bill’s own words. (No, not Ghost. Ghost hasn’t set up the ultra-secure line of communication yet.)

On the Issue of child abuse…

Which of you would have strong suspicions that someone was abusing children and look the other way? If you would, you disgust me.

– Bill Schmaldfeldt in an unapproved comment on this blog

So you had “strong suspicions” about someone abusing children. How much time did you spend with those kids? Did you talk with them somehow? Did you actually ever see them interact with their parents? Did you ever witness anything you might be able to call abuse? What physical evidence did you have that abuse may be occurring? Or did you invent your suspicions as an excuse to harass your target?

On the issue of doxing…

On Thinking Man’s Zombie Bill has been challenged to answer one question, how many examples of failed doxings does it take for him to accept that he isn’t very good at doxing. This is a dangerous road for Bill, since he really needs to examine his failed doxings to his successful ones. And he really needs to be sure that his successful ones are correct. Accurate. Complete.

On the issue of Pronography…

Bill Schmalfeldt once called the cops contacted the Dallas Police Department, which turned the information over to an investigative unit, the FBI Cyber Crimes unit, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the American Sites Associated with Child Protection and accused a photographer of using underage models in the production of pornography. He did so because the photographer didn’t provide Schmalfeldt with age verification information on his models, something that the photographer couldn’t give Schmalfeldt under penalty of federal law. Schmalfeldt incorrectly argued that he was required to give him the information.

It turns out that Schmalfeldt is also a producer of pornography. Specifically, he produced, not take but digitally enhanced, a photograph of two men in either simulated or actual anal sex. The picture had four models in it, since the faces of the body models where replaced by other faces. Schmalfeldt then disseminated the pictures via Twitter and possibly other means. By doing so, he came under the same record keeping requirements that he attempted to claim gave him the right to look at the records of the aforementioned photographer. Specifically, under the law, Bill was either the First or Second Producer of the photograph.

At first, Bill has claimed he did not produce any pornography. Once it was pointed out that there were sealed files in a courtroom that said otherwise, Bill went on a rant about hypocrisy, since he’s been accused of publishing sealed files… even though I’ve not published the picture from the sealed files, and I didn’t get them from the sealed files. But that’s another issue. It is quite clear that Bill has either made and disseminated (first producer) or disseminated (second producer) pornography. Either way, the proper record keeping is required.

That said, Schmalfeldt was asked if he had the proper record keeping files of the four people in his pornography production. Schmalfeldt has yet to answer this question.

on the issue of hypocrisy…

In a comment on this blog, Bill Schmaldfeldt accused me of hypocrisy.

Any time you’d care to explain the hypocrisy of condemning me for having “sealed documents” while you just claimed to have a document that was sealed in the Peace Order hearings, please share. Think of it as a “teaching moment” for all of us.

Bill Schmalfeldt in an approved comment on this blog

I then went on to explain to him exactly how it wasn’t hypocrisy. How first off I consider the question of him having and PUBLISHING sealed documents are not that important to me, because real journalists do it all the time. But I didn’t PUBLISH what was potentially the content of a sealed file, but it wouldn’t matter because I had gotten the file from a source who had captured the post in the wild. In fact, I have copies of several posts that contain several different images, because apparently the original copyright holders (see a trend?) took down at least one of them, and Bill produced a second version using a new stolen photograph.

Now keep in mind, that Bill denied having published the pornographic photograph to me. When I pointed out the sealed files, he flipped out on the whole “hypocrisy” charge that has absolutely no basis in reality. So I asked for a retraction. The explanation as to why there is no retraction has not been forthcoming.

I have, however, received this. It is unclear if this has to do with the Hypocrisy issue or not. Either way, it is neither an apology or a retraction.

On the issue of anonymity…

Is it true that while you’ve been calling other people anonymous cowards for hiding behind their various pen names, you’ve used false identities of your own to return to writing for websites, where you’ve actually written articles about yourself in the third person? I might point you back to the issue of hypocrisy for that one.

On the issue of anonymity part two…

Is it true, Bill, that you are currently picking up domains under the false identity of “Matt Lillefiet” or some other similar name? I’ve seen several references to this, and again have to ask why you call anyone else who behaves anonymously a coward and yet you get to do it and expect not to receive the same treatment.

On the issue of bragging…

Schmalfeldt has repeatedly claimed that people bragged about getting him fired from various “jobs” at online publishing places. A specific claim is that people brag about getting him fired from the Examiner, but other sites are implied in his writings. Schmalfeldt has been asked, repeatedly, about who these braggarts are and what they said. He has yet to provide that information. UPDATE: At least one commenter has pointed to screen caps of Bill saying he couldn’t have been fired since they were non-paying gigs, and you can’t get fired from non-paying gigs. While that’s just plain wrong, it seems Bill is talking out of both sides of his mouth yet again on this issue.

On the issue of conspiracy…

Over at Blubber Sues Bloggers, Schmalfeldt accused the host, Flynn, of conspiracy to do all sorts of nefarious things not specified. It was enough for Flynn to write an entire blog post about it. Schmalfeldt has commented on that post, as of this writing, eight times. Not once has he addressed the post itself, explaining exactly what Flynn has done that was anything like what Schmalfeldt claimed it was. Of course, he can no longer address it over at Blubber Sues Bloggers, since he has been banned from posting there. He may feel free to answer it here, and I’ll pass it on to Flynn. (Wait, is that two blogs he’s been banned from posting at, just in one post? Trend anyone?)

On the issue of Libel, Defamation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress…

In your recent counterclaims you have pointed to a post by one anonymous blogger Paul Krendler as being vile and disgusting. You fail, in your permissive counterclaims to point out that the anonymous blogger Paul Krendler wrote the post as a parody of a post you made, that was also vile and disgusting. Or do you deny writing a vile and disgusting post about WJJ Hoge’s home life? Or does the concept of Defamation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress only apply to you, and not to Hoge?

On the issue of “Right to know…”

I’ve now gone back literally years and years of blog posts about you. I can’t read blog posts from you because of your habit of memory holing things. However, I’ve noticed a trend in other’s writing about you. It seems you repeatedly and often demand some piece of information from other people. You response to them not giving you that piece of information varies from insults to doxing, and you’ve been accused but admittedly not conclusively proven to have done worse. However, what is clear is that you do assume to have a right to know that does not exist. So the question before you today is simple. Do you realize that what goes on in private between other people is not your right to know, and real journalist, which you repeatedly claim to be, do not respond to the answer, in the words of Robert Stacy McCain, to “fuck off” in the way that you have?

I have been chastised by Bill Schmalfeldt, because the only thing that matters in the world is what is going on with Bill Schmalfeldt. I guess he bothered to read the Questions to Bill Schmalfeldt again, and here’s what he had to say:

Only thing is, he tried to answer them once. And he was thoroughly discredited for trying to lie his way out of them. Now he tries to ignore them, hoping they will go away, but they won’t. They will keep getting reposted and added too. A constant reminder to Bill that he doesn’t answer question, he just demands answers to his own. A constant reminder to new comers that Bill has a shady past that he refuses to answer questions about, but heaven forbid he asks you a question, you damn well better answer it… or the consequences may be DOOM!

He never has figured out that he’s not in control of other people’s actions. And if they don’t behave in the way he wants them to behave, he punishes them through any means he can. It’s like his current countersuit that includes Paul Krendler. He is constantly going on and on about how he doesn’t want Paul involved, but Paul won’t give him what he wants, even though he has absolutely no right to ask it, and therefore he has to keep going with the suit. Even though he doesn’t. Even though what he wants can be obtained from Hoge during discovery. It’s all a big fat lie to cover up his own inadequacies.

As for my requested retraction, I’m not sure this is what the Society of Professional Journalists meant in their code of Ethics when they said…

Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

– Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, Section Accountability

But this is probably the closest I’ll get, and it’s more than Hoge got for being called a liar, when it was Bill that was quickly shown to be the one lying.

Unfortunately, Bill just seems to compound mistake upon mistake. With the exception of a couple of comment replies, I’ve never once spoken to WJJ Hoge in my life. I haven’t emailed him. I haven’t sent him a postcard. Bill has spent far more time with Hoge and knows him far better than I do. So Hoge isn’t even an acquaintance to me, much less a friend. Oh, and maybe if you hadn’t used his intellectual property without permission, you wouldn’t be getting sued. Just a thought.

As for the rest, that’s not really correcting your mistakes is it? Or is this you tacitly admitting you no longer believe yourself to be a journalist and will no longer be following the code of ethics of your most valued Society of Professional Journalists. I can’t help but notice, Bill, that ever since I first brought up the code of ethics, your claim of being a journalist and a member of the society has all but disappeared. Why is that? Afraid I’ll throw the code of ethics in your face anytime you do? Because you’re right. I will.

And do you want to know why I’ll do that Bill? That’s because the code of ethics TELLS me to. That’s right, it is the job of ethical journalists to point out the unethical behavior of fellow journalists. So the fact that your little cabal of buddies enables you to be unethical doesn’t make you ethical. It means you hang out with unethical people. Just to be sure you understand what I’m saying, here is the entire Accountability section of the Code of Ethics.

Be Accountable

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

-Code of Ethics, Society of Professional Journalists, Accountability Section

As for the “now shoo” statement, is that the magic phrase? Had Lee Stranahan nearly said “Now shoo” would you have gone away? Had all of your other victims just known that “now shoo” was the catch all way to get rid of an harassing journalist, I’m sure they would have gladly said “now shoo.”

However, Bill, you and I both know that isn’t how journalist work. Some of us, you know the ethical ones, ask questions and report on both the answers and non answers that we get. But we don’t give up because someone says “Now shoo.” Others, the less ethical ones, act like harassing assholes. You’ve picked you camp, I’ve picked mine. And I’ll be reporting on you more in the future.

I don’t know much about Matt Osborne, except that in the Hoge vs Schmalfeldt debacle, he’s safely in the Schmalfeldt camp. I’ve asked Schmalfeldt for a link to a certain website that was Pro-Schmalfeldt and talking about his illness being used against him (Bill commented on it) but he never could give it to me. I know that at about the same time I read that blog post, which greatly influenced my decision to leave Bill’s illness out of the discussion here, I read this post from Matt Osborn. The post has helped me stay focused on Bill’s actions instead of Bill the person.

Bill Schmalfeldt was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease in 2000. Soon after, he was forced to retire from his job due to physical limitations. As his world began to shrink, he became an advocate for people suffering with Parkinson’s. He eventually underwent experimental deep brain surgery as part of a research project to study ways to slow the progress of the disease. His own disease continued to progress until his physical impairment became so great he was no longer able to function in the role of advocate.

Parkinson’s is a particularly debilitating illness because it degrades motor skills, emotional responses and cognitive skills all at the same time. Bill has been fortunate enough to retain his intellect, but he struggles with depression and a lack of impulse control. He cannot stand on his own for any length of time. His particular type of Parkinson’s causes his body to go completely rigid without warning. He is, therefore, confined to his home for the most part, with his wife serving as caregiver.

Faced with limited options, Schmalfeldt turned to the Internet, social networks, and online outlets, but was unfortunate enough to attract vicious adversaries in the process.

These three paragraphs made me change the way I thought about Bill. No, I think I’ve made it clear that his actions are independent of his condition, but I will call out his actions and not call out him. That’s why I don’t call him anything other than Bill, Schmaldfeldt or jokingly as This Blogs Best Buddy. (BTW, if you missed why I call him TBBBBS, it’s because after his first meltdown, my stats when through the roof.)

So I thank Matt for that insight into Bill’s life, and motivating me to not let myself stoop down to the crass level of insulting his personhood and staying focused on his actions and words.

That is a very short segment of a very long post, and it may be the only part of the post I agree with. Even then, there is something I disagree with in those important (at least to me) three paragraphs. And that’s the very last phrase, “but was unfortunate enough to attract vicious adversaries in the process.”

Bill didn’t attract adversaries, he entered the discussion as one. Whatever else might be said, it is clear from every source I can find that Bill engaged these people after they went after one Brett Kimberlin, and Bill entered the fray directly opposed to them. Please, Matt, if that’s not true explain it to me, because whatever thoughtful and insightful thing Bill posted to engage in the Kimberlin Kerfuffle (that’s my name for it, no one else can have it) has long since been deleted from the internet.

Now, as to the rest of Matt’s piece, I’ve some serious issues which I’m about to cover. One of the ones I find most telling is that Matt half heartedly admits that Bill has acted badly. What I find funny is that Matt mostly avoids direct examples of how others have “mistreated” Bill because, and this is conjecture on my part, want to have to defend the actions Bill took just prior to the mistreatment. In fact, this is how Matt describes Bill’s behavior.

Yes, I think it is fair to say Bill has reacted badly, more than once.

Now most of the post all this comes from is a denouncement of WJJ Hoge for filing a peace order against Bill. Matt attempts to defuse it as an abuse of a loophole in the domestic violence laws of Maryland. It isn’t. Maryland specifically understood that people not in a domestic situation could have the same issues of harassment and none permissive contact. So they offered a second, not part of the domestic violence laws, method of getting what is known elsewhere as a restraining order. I wish more states did the same thing. Hoge didn’t “drive a truck” through a loophole in Maryland law, he used the peace order laws to do exactly what they are intended to do. Make Bill stop contacting Hoge.

Of course Matt has to bring up that the peace order “permitted Hoge to self-file nearly 400 criminal charges.” Only he didn’t self file, he showed a court official every instant where Bill violated the order and the court official filed the charges. This wasn’t a “He said, She said” situation, Hoge showed the court official what Bill did.

And call it whatever you want, it doesn’t matter that you find it repugnant, the Judge ordered Bill not to use Hoge’s twitter account name in tweets. If that was as egregious as you say, then Bill should have asked for an emergency appeal. But really, it isn’t egregious, it’s common sense. Bill found it insulting and continued to @mention Hoge nearly 400 times, each of those times a direct violation of the Judge’s orders. It resulted in an extension of the court order, and had it not been for mediation, Bill would have been found in contempt. I know you and Bill are friendly, Matt. Did you ever advise him to stop using @mentions of Hoge?

But that’s not even the most outrageous thing, in my mind, is the following.

Any bystander who comments on their activity can expect to receive messages like the one I did. Paul Krendler, a frequent commenter and co-conspirator with Hoge, suggested I “visit the deraged lunatic cyberstalker at his run-down mobile home” to stop Schmalfeldt “by any means necessary.”

Krendler also authored a “parody” of Schmalfeldt on the same day describing him as “old and crazy, fat and demented,” before launching into another seven or eight paragraphs of similar derision.

I will say that Paul can be kinda blunt. And I don’t often talk about Bill’s home, since I grew up in a run-down trailer. People do what they gotta do to survive, and I hope Bill is living as comfortable a life as he can. But the second paragraph, well that’s only telling half the truth, Matt. It’s a favorite tactic of Bill, so since you’re friendly and all maybe you only know half the truth. So let me fill you in on the other half.

“Are you talking about me, Daddy?” And Hoge realizes he spoke those last words out loud.

“Go back to your room and masturbate, son. Daddy’s thinking.”

“Yay! Pretend girl time,” his son blurts and the house shakes again as he lumbers down the stairs. Again, Hoge worries about the plates on the wall.

The Hoge legacy. The proud Hoge lineage will end with IV. III has long since understood that. His bride won’t touch him. Murdering her is out of the question since she makes the real money.

– Bill Schmalfeldt in a now memory holed post on one of his now memory holed blogs.

Paul Krendler did write a parody. A parody about Bill’s home life. It was vile and disgusting. But it wasn’t from out of no where. Bill wrote a piece of satire. That above is but a brief segment of it. Anytime Bill talks about Krendler, it’s about how vile and disgusting Krendler’s parody is, without once every bringing up what it is a parody of. Bill want’s everyone to believe it is a parody of him, but it isn’t. It’s a parody of something vile and disgusting that Bill wrote. Where you aware of the original writing, Matt? Did you gloss over it because it didn’t fit your narrative?

At any rate, I think I’ve made my point. Matt goes into great lengths to describe the humiliating things done to Bill, while overlooking the truly vile things Bill has done. And he focuses in on Hoge in particular, despite the fact that while Hogewash may be a source of great turmoil for Bill, Hoge himself has been relatively benign writer about Bill. You’d be hard pressed to find where Hoge himself has written anything particularly nasty about Bill. Not so much with Bill about Hoge.

I had hoped after his moment of clarity yesterday, following the complete humiliation he suffered on Hogewash over the contacting copyright holders issue… up to calling Hoge a liar (something he hasn’t apologized for or retracted)… that perhaps I could finally get my retraction from Bill Schmalfeldt for calling me a hypocrite for having documents I never said I had over things he did that I never said was bad.

To date, that hasn’t happened. Today he seems all butthurt over the comments on Hogewash. If he’d just stop reading Hogewash, he wouldn’t get all caught up in such an elaborate lie like he did and have to correct himself. But hey, that’s not his style. Apparently it’s not his style to offer retractions when he’s wrong, either.

Well, comments exploded with my revelation of Ghost. I thank everyone for the input and apologize for any confusion from me answering while at work. That damn smart phone seems to grow smaller ever day. They really want my thumbs on those keys?

That said, I took yawls advice and I did a bit of research. I started here:

So I followed that link, and was a little surprised by what I found. It seems this “Neal” character really is a Ghost. I had no idea when I tried to, on the spot, give my deep source a cool name that, if it turns out to be Neal, then it really is an appropriate name form him as a source. From what I gather, Neal doesn’t stay in one place long enough to get served a summons in his child custody case, he doesn’t have a driver’s license and he doesn’t have a car. He does what he can to stay invisible. He is trying to be a ghost.

I didn’t just read what McCain has about Neal, but searched out other sources. Some of you are going to scold me for this, but I think that it is possible that Matt Osborn at Osborn Ink may have described Neal the best. Looking at posts about Neal at McCain, Stranahan, Hoge, and elsewhere I think Matt hit it on the head when he said that Neal is the “SuperVillian” of the anti-Kimberlin crowd. (Okay, Matt said of the Right wing blogosphere, but I don’t subscribe to the right/left thing as we discussed yesterday.) Here’s what Matt had to say…

They made Neal Rauhauser into a left-wing supervillain because they wanted and needed one so badly. And for a moment, right wing bloggers seemed to finally be picking on someone their own size, because no one could find Rauhauser to engage him in “lawfare.” So they wrote with what little information they had, embellished and inflated it, and called the whole fiasco their finest hour.

Now that doesn’t mean I believe all Matt has to say about Neal. In fact, I’m working on a post about Matt, since he’s a fellow Alabama blogger I thought I’d introduce myself. Hold off on your judgement till you see that, I ask. And I’ve not forgotten the anonymous poster who suggested that Ghost may actually BE Matt.

At any rate, whoever Ghost is, it is clear that Ghost is more than familiar with the very early days of Neal’s activities, and thinks all this ties in with the timeline of Neal’s online antics. Some key words from his lengthy scribe. Brietbart. Weinergate. Bean dogs. Gulgaggers.

So, I don’t know if Ghost is Neal, or is Matt, or is some as yet unknown watcher in the wings. I don’t care right now. I’m not going to use anything he sends me without it being clearly vetted through other sources. That’s how you do things with anonymous sources, you don’t just run with it you have to back it up. Because one of your goals is to protect that source. The other is that you need to verify your facts anyway.

So here’s the deal I offer Ghost, if he wants to go forward. I will listen to whatever you have to say. If I find any of the information interesting, and I can vet it through other sources, I will use it. If I can’t vet it, but I still find it interesting and want to use it, I will post it here as clearly coming from Ghost and asking my readers for more information. I have no desire to know your location or identity. That’s the best I can do, and the information will be one way. I won’t be sharing information, mainly because I don’t have any. Also, because any information I have is protected by the same deal I’m offering you. (Yes my friends, Ghost isn’t the first behind the scenes anonymous source I have, just the most mysterious.)